delete_channel

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Supprime un canal' indicates a destructive mutation, but it doesn't specify critical details like whether deletion is permanent, requires admin permissions, affects channel history, or has side effects. The description is minimal and fails to compensate for the lack of annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise with just three words ('Supprime un canal'), making it front-loaded and efficient. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness, as it lacks necessary details for a destructive operation. Every word serves a purpose, but more sentences would be justified.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects, return values, error conditions, or usage context. The high schema coverage helps with parameters, but overall context for safe and correct usage is lacking.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear parameter descriptions in the schema itself. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Supprime un canal' (Deletes a channel) clearly states the verb and resource, making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_message' or 'delete_role', which perform similar deletion operations on different resources. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no mentions of prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete default channels), or comparisons to related tools like 'edit_channel' or 'get_channels'. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.